1 Thursday, 29 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 First of all, we put on the record that Mr. Mladic is not
12 present. He has waived his right, and the waiver -- his right to be
13 present, and that waiver has been signed by him and that's filed.
14 Therefore, we'll proceed in the absence of Mr. Mladic.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: There was one matter remaining from yesterday.
17 There may be some unclarity as to whether D1335 was formally admitted,
18 whether I spoke the sacred words that they are admitted. Most likely, I
19 did not. Therefore, D1335 - which I think appears already in e-court as
20 admitted - is formally admitted into evidence.
21 At the same time, there were short portions shown yesterday,
22 Mr. Lukic, but the whole of D1335 is, at this moment, more than two
23 hours, and you're invited to see whether you can reduce the size and
24 focus on the portions that were played in court.
25 Could we hear from you in, well, let's say, within one week
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we make it one week.
4 Then, finally, since Mr. Mladic is not present, we'll have
5 sessions of one hour and a half. That's three such sessions separated by
6 two breaks of half an hour. And, Mr. Lukic, you're expected, in view of
7 the time you've taken until now, to finish in the first session.
8 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Just for your information, Mr. Mladic has waived his
13 right to be present today so we'll proceed in his absence. I'd like to
14 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given
15 at the beginning of your testimony. And Mr. Lukic will now continue his
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
23 A. Good morning.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D05499 on our
25 screens. We need page 204 in the B/C/S and the same page in the English
2 While we're waiting for the document to appear, I wanted to
3 inform the Chamber that there is an error in the existing translation
4 into English. It concerns the numbering of paragraphs. It seems that
5 photograph 150 has been switched for a paragraph number, resulting in
6 paragraphs 190 to 198 being different in the two versions between the
7 English and B/C/S.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, could you check if we have the right
9 pages on the screen.
10 MR. LUKIC: Obviously not, Your Honour. Thank you. I do have in
11 B/C/S version, and I need paragraph 193 in English version. That's
12 the ... in these eight paragraphs there is a difference by one. So I --
13 we need the next page in English version. There we go.
14 So paragraph 192 in B/C/S corresponds to paragraph 193 in English
15 version. And since -- I don't know whether we would be able to correct
16 the translation since we got it in PDF from -- but we'll try to correct
17 that since we have to make some other corrections and we'll try to sort
18 that out.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it would help that if everyone who has to
20 work with it has a copy where it clearly is indicated what has been
21 changed so that we have working material so that we don't have to
22 reconstruct all the corrections which were made on the original one.
23 And as I suggested yesterday, and I think you followed that suggestion,
24 you can also include the wrong numbering of ...
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. [Interpretation] We will discuss incident F-12 of
3 18 November 1994.
4 It is stated that fire was opened on Dzenana Sokolovic and her
5 son Nermin while they were walking along Zmaja od Bosne Street. Do you
6 have it in front of you?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. What was characteristic of this case, Mr. Poparic?
9 A. In this case, Dzenana Sokolovic walked along the street with her
10 son Nermin and her daughter, moving from the settlement of Hrasno towards
11 a house in Bistrik, towards the east. She was also carrying some
12 firewood. At some point, a bullet hit her, passing through her abdomen
13 and hitting her son in the head where he was killed. She was transferred
14 to a hospital and, luckily enough, survived.
15 The basic problem was to determine from which side
16 Dzenana Sokolovic was hit, since there were many contradictions in terms
17 of her entry wound. In her medical documentation it is stated that she
18 was hit from left to right; whereas the police reports and according to
19 her own statement it was the other way around. Therefore, that was the
20 most difficult thing to determine: From which direction the projectile
22 Q. Stop, please. Thank you.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Next I'd like to have 1D05602. We
24 need page 2 in both versions. We'll focus our attention on paragraph 9.
25 This is Dzenana Sokolovic's statement where she says that:
1 "On this particular day, as far as I could remember, it was the
2 18th of November, 1994. The time could have been around 11.00 a.m., and
3 a cease-fire was in force. I was" --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: We have both B/C/S on the screen. Can we have
6 English, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We have it by now. Please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. "I was returning from my mother-in-law in Hrasno Brdo where I
10 picked up some firewood. I was walking with my two children and it was a
11 bright and sunny day. We were walking towards the centre of town. When
12 we had reached the area closer to the municipal building, I heard
13 shooting going on. All the people on the street started to lay down on
14 the ground. Then suddenly something very hot entered my stomach and I
15 felt severe pain."
16 MR. LUKIC: Can we move to next page in B/C/S, please.
17 Q. [Interpretation] "... suddenly something very hot entered my
18 stomach and I felt severe pain. At the same time, I saw my son fall
19 down. UNPROFOR personnel were present in the vicinity of the shooting.
20 They rushed to the seen, and I was taken to the hospital. In the
21 hospital, I learnt that my son had died on the spot."
22 This is all we wanted to read from the statement.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask for clarification. Is it
24 mentioned anywhere else in the statement that the bullet came from the
25 right to the left?
1 MR. LUKIC: I think the direction she described she was moving
2 could help --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where -- where -- but the witness here told us
4 that she said she was struck from the right to the left. I'm looking for
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Poparic, where did you find that piece of information?
8 A. It is not in this statement. Later on, it came to light in some
9 police reports and her testimony, but it is not in this statement.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic, you have presented a report.
11 You should know whether the material this expert relies on in this
12 respect, whether that is in evidence, yes or no. Apparently this
13 statement doesn't help us out. So, therefore, if you want us to
14 seriously consider what the witness said, then make sure that whatever he
15 relies on is before us because, otherwise, we can't ...
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, why is this part of the statement
20 A. It is important because she described the spot where she was hit.
21 It is near the Novo Sarajevo municipal building which is also in Zmaja od
22 Bosne Street. However, it is at some distance from the place in front of
23 the museum where the incident is claimed to have happened by some
24 1 kilometre away towards the west. So she was moving from Hrasno Brdo
25 towards Marin Dvor where it is asserted she had been hit. The way she
1 describes it, it happened near the municipal building at a distance of
2 1100 metres. There are also some people mentioned here in this
3 paragraph, whereas later on they are not mentioned later on.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, again, would you please leave the
5 evaluation of the evidence, even if there's some inconsistencies to the
6 Chamber, and not because whether it's right or wrong what she says here
7 or what she say there is not really within the expertise of a ballistic
8 expert unless he uses it for his weapon and ballistic analysis. If he
9 does so, then what you should do is if there are inconsistent statements,
10 for example, you said: One leads me to these conclusions; however, if I
11 take the other one, it leads me to other conclusions. But it is not for
12 the witness to determine where, who was accurate in testimony,
13 statements, which sometimes we may not even have because they're not in
15 Would you please keep in mind that this Chamber is finally giving
16 its judgement, whatever it will be, on the basis of the evidence before
17 it and not on the evaluation of the evidence by an expert, evidence which
18 may not be known to us.
19 Please proceed, and I think it's now the third time that I've
20 drawn your attention to this, so therefore please proceed in a focused
21 way, relying on what we'd like to hear; that is, what the expertise of
22 this witness could tell us.
23 Please proceed.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Nevertheless I have a question for the witness
25 with respect to the last answer he gave. Page 6, lines 23 and 24 and 25,
1 you say:
2 "The way she describes it, it happened near the municipal
3 building at a distance of 1100 metres."
4 Where can we find this in the statement of the witness, this
5 distance of 1100 metres?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I established the distance because
7 I know where the municipal building is. And I know where the
8 intersection is at which it is claimed she was hit. That is the
9 difference of 1100 metres.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you draw my attention to it in paragraph 9,
11 which was read to you by Mr. Lukic, where she describes it in that way,
12 that you can measure the distance?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We would need to go back to -- let
14 me try to find in the English version. Now it's gone.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's back. Please don't touch the screen.
16 In paragraph 9, it was -- I can help you. I can help you. I
17 read --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The fifth line of paragraph 9. She
19 mentions the municipal building.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is the only municipal building
22 she could have passed.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: She didn't say anything about the location, the
24 exact location where she was hit. She says, and that was read to you and
25 you should know that:
1 "When we had reached the area closer to the municipal building, I
2 heard shooting going on."
3 It's an area. How can you measure an area and the distance to
4 the building with such a precision of 1100 metres taken from the
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I measured the distance from the
7 municipal building to the intersection at Marin Dvor where it is claimed
8 she was hit. She says she was close to the municipal building and I
9 thought it fair because I can't know the exact location. The municipal
10 building is important.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, the municipal building. Where can we find
13 in this paragraph reference to the intersection at Marin Dvor?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She doesn't say it in this
15 paragraph. She just mentions that when she approached the municipal
16 building she could hear shooting and that she was hit. She doesn't say
17 in the paragraph that she was hit at Marin Dvor but close to the
18 municipal building.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now I understand that you were measuring an area
20 which is not described in this paragraph and the distance of the area to
21 the -- to a building and specifically saying 1100 metres.
22 Thank you. Mr. Lukic.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I also --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I apologise.
2 MR. LUKIC: Can I draw your attention to the translation problem.
3 Maybe it will solve a lot --
4 JUDGE ORIE: If there's a translation problem, you are in a
5 position to try to --
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- resolve it, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S version, probably the version that was read
9 to this lady, it says "close to the municipal building," not "close to
10 the area of municipal building."
11 JUDGE ORIE: In English it says "closer to the area of
12 the municipal building" --
13 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S it says -- I'll read in B/C/S:
14 [Interpretation] "When we approached the municipal building ..."
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's not close to the municipal building.
16 That is approaching, that is, coming closer to. I do understand that
17 there may be a translation issue, but at the same time coming closer to a
18 building is not something you could take as a starting point for
19 measuring a distance.
20 MR. LUKIC: Only if it is translated "coming closer," I would
21 translate it "when we come close to the municipal building." That is
22 what it says in B/C/S.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The translation into B/C/S will have do be verified
24 in this case. That's what should be done, and we'll be better able to
25 assess what problem there is, if there's any.
1 Please proceed.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question to ask, so ...
3 Sir, at page 6, lines 23, where Judge Fluegge referred you to,
4 you said that it happened near the municipal building at a distance of
5 1100 metres. And at page 8, you say:
6 "I know where the intersection is at which it is claimed she was
8 Now, you say she was hit in the intersection in page 8. In 6,
9 you say, it was -- it happened near the municipal building at a distance
10 of 1100 metres.
11 Now you have just explained that the distance of 1100 metres is
12 the distance between where happened and the intersection; but in
13 paragraph 8, you say then it happened at the intersection.
14 Which is which?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's obviously a
17 According to the indictment and according to the police reports
18 she was hit at the intersection --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me -- let me stop you there. I'm just asking
20 you to explain the two versions that you have given now. I'm not talking
21 about the indictment. Unless you're saying you were misinterpreted here
22 or misrecorded.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not mention two versions. I
24 mentioned the intersection at which I know she was hit. It is at
25 Marin Dvor, between the museum and the school of philology. The
1 municipal building is 1100 metres away from the intersection. I measured
2 the distance between the municipal building to the intersection in order
3 to give an impression of the distance. She said: I was approaching the
4 municipal building. The municipal building is 1100 metres away from the
5 intersection. That's all.
6 In this statement she said she was near the municipal building.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. But I'm saying in paragraph 8
8 [sic] you then say:
9 "And I know where the intersection is at which it is claimed she
10 was hit."
11 Now are you saying it is claimed that she was hit at the
12 intersection, not at the building. That's the difference that I'm trying
13 to resolve here.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, when I said that, I had in
15 mind the intersection specified in the indictment as the place where she
16 was hit. It is between the museum and the school of philology. That
17 intersection is quite removed from the place where ...
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for the explanation.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: Can we have on our screens, please, P951.
21 Q. [Interpretation] This is a police report about that incident.
22 Have you read it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So what does it say in the report? Where was she hit?
25 A. It says here that she was hit at the intersection of the
1 Franjo Racki and Zmaja od Bosne Street, which is between the museum and
2 the Faculty of Philosophy. That is that intersection that I mentioned
3 earlier that I am familiar with.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you refer us in the English, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think what the witness has before him, is that ...
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have it. Please put your questions to the
8 witness, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: It's on the screen now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We're just going to briefly deal with
12 the injuries now. We need to look at page 7 in the English version and
13 page 11 in the B/C/S version.
14 Q. We can see here at the bottom of the page which it says that the
15 entry point of the wound is visible, 0.5 centimetres wide. It's very
17 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot hear the witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- Witness, please adjust the microphone if
19 you speak because if you are leaned over to the screen, the interpreters
20 cannot hear you. So please take care what you want to say reaches us.
21 Well, mainly -- okay.
22 Now --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- can you please repeat what you said a second ago.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just tried to assist Mr. Lukic
1 because on my screen, the visibility is better. 0.5 centimetres and the
2 wound is bleeding, and the exit wound is visible to the paramedian right,
3 3 times 2 centimetres, and also bleeding.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now we've read. Now, please, a question.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
7 Q. [Interpretation] So from which side was Dzenana Sokolovic hit
8 according to the medical report?
9 A. According to the medical report, she was hit from the left side
10 and the exit wound is on the right side. And the description of the
11 wounds and the size of it corresponds to the size of the entry and the
12 exit wound because the exit wound is always smaller than the entry wound.
13 Q. And according to this report, from which side was the boy,
14 Nermin Divovic, hit?
15 A. According to the report, the boy, Nermin, was hit from the right
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's also look at the official
18 report. Page 4 in the English version and -- page 4 in the B/C/S version
19 and page 5 in the English version. [In English] Sorry, B/C/S 5;
20 English 4. [Interpretation] This is the last paragraph on this page in
21 the B/C/S version and the last-but-one in the English version.
22 Q. And we can see there that the entry wound was on the right side,
23 the exit wound was on the left side of the stomach. The son of
24 Dzenana Sokolovic, Nermin Divovic, aged 7, succumbed to his wounds on the
25 way to hospital. The entry wound was at the back of the head above the
1 right ear and the exit wound on the face, below the left eye.
2 A. According to this, it was on the right-hand side. However, the
3 description of the wound does not correspond to the actual situation that
4 we can see on the photograph of the boy. One wound was below the right
5 eye and the other wound is above the left ear. The description given
6 here by the police does not correspond to the actual sustained injuries.
7 Q. Thank you. This is in evidence and it can be looked at.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at a video, please.
9 That's 1D05924, please. We need to look at the timer, 1 hour,
10 17 minutes, 23 seconds to 1 hour, 17 minutes, 26 seconds. So we just
11 need to look at the three seconds of the footage. But before we begin --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you just repeat the number for the record.
13 MR. LUKIC: The 65 ter or timing?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: 65 ter.
15 MR. LUKIC: It's 1D05924.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Do you recognise the person in the footage, Mr. Poparic?
19 A. This is Mrs. Dzenana Sokolovic on this footage, and the recording
20 was made in the hospital and it was broadcast on television.
21 Q. What should we pay attention to when we look at the footage?
22 A. You need to look at the places where the bandages are.
23 Q. We need to look at the stomach?
24 A. Yes, that's right, the stomach.
25 MR. LUKIC: Can we play those 3 seconds, please.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You viewed this footage. What did you see?
4 A. I noticed --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour, I've let this go now for a very long
7 time, but it strikes me we're getting into an area of forensic pathology
8 or medical expertise, and we haven't heard any evidence from this witness
9 whatsoever that -- to show that he has any background in either of those
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: Let us hear what Mr. Poparic has to say.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, there's an objection against the kind of
14 questions you're asking him. So then that's not resolved by saying
15 "let's hear what he says."
16 MR. LUKIC: We think it is important to establish the wounds as
17 well if you want --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the issue is whether that should be done by
19 a doctor or by a weapon and ballistic expert.
20 MR. LUKIC: It should be done by a doctor, if we want to have
21 it --
22 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to have it, if you want to present it,
23 then call a doctor.
24 MR. LUKIC: So he cannot answer what we all see here.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No. What he can do is, and we're not then looking
1 at this, is say: Well, starting from this assumption, and he may have
2 taken that from wherever he wants it, starting from an assumption that
3 this or this was the case. And then, of course, later you'll have to --
4 we will have to establish whether that assumption is a right assumption
5 or a wrong assumption, and then can he draw any conclusions on
6 ballistics. But it's not for this witness to establish and it's not the
7 first time, I think I repeated this several, several, several times, it's
8 not for this witness to evaluate on the basis of evidence - which is not
9 footnoted, by the way - often saying a first statement, second statement,
10 this must be right, that must be -- let's try to stick this witness to
11 where his expertise lies.
12 So if the witness came to any conclusion, then we'll hear what --
13 on what that is based, on what assumption, but not for him to establish
14 the details of what seems to be in the field of forensic pathology.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: I just want to draw your attention that it's in his
17 report. It was at figures 153. And we would offer this video into
18 evidence as well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. Well, if he in his report draws conclusions,
20 that's not different from what he does in court, Mr. Lukic. So,
21 therefore, if you think to circumvent it by just pointing to his report,
22 then I'm afraid that you may be disappointed. And -- but if you say it's
23 in this and this paragraph, then we'll carefully look at it, whether
24 there's any proper basis for it.
25 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, it's paragraph 199. We would just offer this
1 video, this clip into evidence, Your Honour.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: On -- for what purposes?
4 MR. LUKIC: So everybody can see the wounds.
5 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, there's a suggestion that we could see
8 any relevant thing on this video. Therefore, the Chamber decided we'll
9 look at it. You played the portion you wanted to. If we see anything
10 which, without further explanation, would assist us, we may decide to
11 admit it. If, however, we do not see anything, then you should call
12 someone who could explain to us what is there to be seen relevant which
13 gives the video then probative value.
14 And before we could that, have you ever met Ms. Sokolovic,
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You don't know her personally?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Whether this is Ms. Sokolovic, I take it that it is
20 her, but you couldn't tell us?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can confirm it because it's a --
22 it's footage that was broadcast on television. There is a report. I
23 don't know if it's there, in the footage. It was broadcast in the news
24 programme and they said that was Mrs. Sokolovic, so that's how I know.
25 So if the television referred to her correctly, then it is
1 Mrs. Sokolovic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's exactly what I wanted to point out. If the
3 television is right, it's Ms. Sokolovic. If the television is wrong,
4 it's not Ms. Sokolovic. You just don't know, isn't it?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know it personally, no.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, play the portion you want to play. We'll
7 then see --
8 MR. LUKIC: I'll ask Mr. Poparic whether he knows this lady
9 standing next to Barry Hogan and giving her statement.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he has never met her so the same story is
11 true. If Mr. Hogan is right, the witness is right -- I'm not saying
12 that we have serious --
13 MR. LUKIC: If Mr. Hogan is not right, we will accept it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you can play the portion of the video and
15 we'll then decide whether or not it has, at this moment, such probative
16 value that we can admit it.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Or was it just the seconds we have looked at?
19 MR. LUKIC: We are trying to see if there's introduction, yeah.
20 Can we hear it with the sound now? Maybe a bit longer so we might hear
21 the name.
22 Can we start from the same point?
23 [Video-clip played]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if this is what you tender, Mr. Lukic, then the
25 admission is denied.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Poparic, did you see Dzenana Sokolovic talking to the
4 Barry Hogan in the video footage?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you measure how tall Mrs. Sokolovic was in relation to
7 Barry Hogan; and did you know how tall he was?
8 A. Yes. I didn't measure it, but I did make an estimate because
9 there was no information about how tall Mrs. Sokolovic was and how tall
10 her son was. And this is actually quite important information in order
11 to be able to evaluate if this bullet actually hit both Dzenana Sokolovic
12 and her son. This is particularly important when determining the side
13 from which the shot came. I tried to assess the height of
14 Dzenana Sokolovic because I did have some footage where she was talking
15 to Barry Hogan, and on the basis of his height, I made an assessment or a
16 statement of her height.
17 Q. How tall is Mr. Barry Hogan?
18 A. Mr. Barry Hogan is 1 metre .93 centimetres tall, but I made an
19 estimate with a kind of reserve. I took it as being 1 metre .95, because
20 it's an estimate. We can't be precise. And I came to the conclusion
21 that Mr. Dzenana Sokolovic was 1.65 centimetres [as interpreted] tall,
22 and there could be a small margin of error. She could have been taller,
23 but in my estimate she could not have been taller than 1.65 metres.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, where do you get it from that Mr. Barry Hogan
25 is 1 metre 93?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the -- at the beginning, when I
2 worked in the Karadzic case, I didn't know how tall he was. So I was
3 forced to make an evaluation. And before I testified, I actually asked
4 Mr. Hogan how tall he was and he told me 1.93 metres. I did make that
5 estimate, but I rounded it up, and I mentioned why I did that and
6 actually that turned out to be correct.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Finally you answered my question. Thank you so
9 MR. LUKIC: And we have it on the transcript, Your Honour: I
10 asked Mr. Barry Hogan how tall he is.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Who asked, you or the witness --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's why I say he has finally answered my
13 question. All what he was saying before in trying to answer my question
14 was irrelevant to my question. When he says "I asked Barry Hogan," now
15 he was answering my question and that was what I was telling him.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And what is your conclusion in this case? Could they have been
20 hit with the same bullet; and what would be the difference in the height
21 between the boy's head and the mother's stomach?
22 A. I said that I didn't have any information about the height of the
23 boy. I couldn't find that anywhere. But in the photograph of the boy
24 lying at the cross-roads, an estimate can be made because there is an
25 area in the intersection, which I measured myself, that was the standard
1 in the former Yugoslavia, it's 50 centimetres wide. And on the basis of
2 that, I estimated that he could have been 1.20 metres tall, or 1.10.
3 Why is this important? If the boy was next to the mother, it's
4 important to see whether the wound in his head was at the level of the
5 stomach wound of Mrs. Sokolovic. According to the footage that we just
6 looked at, in my estimate, and I did consult -- I'm not a forensic
7 pathologist, but I did consult with a professor of forensic medicine who
8 died, unfortunately, a few days ago --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you. This Chamber is not interested in
10 hearsay pathological expertise from other persons. If we need that,
11 either Mr. Lukic or the Prosecution will call such experts. But
12 second-hand hearsay of such expertise is not what we expect from this --
13 from you as a witness.
14 Please proceed.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my assessment,
16 Dzenana Sokolovic, as far as I am versed in these things, was hit a
17 little bit below the belly button. On the basis of that and in view of
18 her height, I concluded that these two wounds - in the head of the boy
19 and her stomach - are not overlapping if the shot came from the right
20 side. If the shot came from the left side, then it's possible for those
21 wounds to line up. If they were next to each other. But if it came from
22 the right side, since that is the estimate, if they were far apart, and
23 the further apart they were, the lower would be the point of the wound of
24 the second person.
25 So I have given you an explanation of the basis for my
1 conclusions. The boy could not have been struck with the same bullet if
2 it had come from the right side. If it had come from the left side,
3 there was a possibility that they were both struck with the same bullet.
4 That is my assessment in view of all the shortcomings in the documents.
5 Unfortunately, the forensic analysis in these cases would be of
6 crucial importance, and, unfortunately, we don't have it. It would have
7 been very useful to have measured the height of the wound of
8 Mrs. Dzenana Sokolovic, and, unfortunately, I was not in a position to
9 make that measurement. Then we would have reached the most precise
11 Q. When you talk about the left and the right side, whose positions
12 are on what side? If it was one bullet, from which side could it have
14 A. If it had come from the right side, then the assumption was that
15 it was fired from the Metalka building because it is in that area. And
16 then that would have been from the positions of the Army of
17 Republika Srpska. On the left-hand side, however, everything was under
18 the control of the B and H army.
19 Q. So if the bullet had come from the right side, could it have
20 caused both wounds, from the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska?
21 A. On the basis of all of these assumptions, which I had to have
22 used, that could not have been the case. So I repeat again that the most
23 proper way to have done it would have been to measure the entry and exit
24 wounds of Mrs. Sokolovic. That would have been very useful in this case.
25 Q. All right. I would now like to move to incident F-14 from your
1 document 1D05499.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version, it begins on
3 page 218; and in the English version, it begins on page 209 -- no,
4 actually, 226. I apologise. It would be item 209.
5 That on 23rd of November, 1994, a tram was hit in the street
6 Zmaja od Bosne between the technical school and the Marsal Tito barracks,
7 and at that time two persons were wounded.
8 Q. I'm going to ask you this --
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And, in the meantime, can we look at
11 Q. We are looking at a statement of Huso Palo. And in both
12 versions, we're looking at paragraph -- that's immediately below the
13 statement, the words -- the word "statement."
14 That paragraph states that Mr. Huso Palo stated the following:
15 "On 23rd of November, 1994, I was driving tram garage number 263.
16 At 1535 hours I was heading towards -- from Marin Dvor towards Remiza,
17 and when I reached the section between the technical school and the
18 Marsal Tito barracks" --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a translation error there, Mr. Lukic? It
20 says in the English:
21 I reached the -- "I was heading towards Marin Dvor and
22 Remiza ..."
23 MR. LUKIC: From Marin Dvor towards Remiza.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what the English says but --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters confirm that there is an error in
1 the English translation.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we proceed on the basis of there being an error
3 so we understand this and it should be further then -- we would receive a
4 new translation.
5 For the time being we start from -- reading it as "from
6 Marin Dvor to Remiza."
7 Yes, please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] "And when I reached the section
9 between the technical school and the Marsal Tito barracks, specifically
10 the turning that splits off towards the new railway station, I heard a
11 sound of something hitting the tram, as if someone had thrown a stone at
12 me. The passengers reacted, shouting to hurry up because someone in the
13 tram had been wounded. I drove on to the first stop where the traffic
14 police were located and stopped there."
15 Q. Did you draw any conclusions as to where was the place where the
16 tram was hit?
17 A. This piece of information is very important. There are two
18 versions of events. According to one witness, Afeza Karadzic asserted
19 that the tram was hit at the intersection of Franje Racki. That is the
20 previous intersection between the museum and the Faculty of Philosophy.
21 But here we see that the driver, Huso Palo, said that this was at the
22 place where the turning was, and in my assessment this is 50 metres
23 forward towards the west.
24 Another witness who was wounded in this incident, Sabina Sabanic
25 I think is her name, yes, Sabina Sabanic, she described the event
1 slightly differently but it corresponds to this. She said that she heard
2 a shot. People started screaming. The tram continued a little bit
3 further and stopped near the Marsal Tito barracks, which more or less
4 comports with what Huso Palo said.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
6 MS. EDGERTON: I've been spending some time, since the witness
7 has mentioned some names of his -- the witnesses who are sources of
8 information for what he is saying, trying to find out if these specific
9 statements he refers to are evidence before this Chamber. And they're
11 MR. LUKIC: It will be. I will tender 1D691 now.
12 JUDGE ORIE: They are what? They are evidence now?
13 MR. LUKIC: It is 1D00691 and I want to tender that document into
15 JUDGE ORIE: This one?
16 MR. LUKIC: This one in front of us.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the witness -- and you may not have
18 understood Ms. Edgerton well. I think the witness referred to other
19 statements which would be inconsistent with this one or consistent or, I
20 mean, whatever. And I think Ms. Edgerton said that what the witness
21 refers to, apart from what we now read in the statement, that that's not
22 in evidence.
23 Is it, Mr. Lukic, or is it not?
24 MR. LUKIC: It's not.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's not. Then the comment of this witness on this
1 document loses much of its probative value, I would say, because he
2 refers to matters which we are unable to verify. Unless we have it
3 clearly in his statement, precise sources, and if you are still about to
4 tender those sources.
5 MR. LUKIC: I will tender this document, Your Honour, for the
6 first place.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we will mark this document for
10 identification pending verification of the translation because there
11 was -- there were even more differences with what was read to us. That
12 has no consequences that part of the comment of the witness to other
13 references are unclear to the Chamber. We don't know what it is about.
14 So, therefore, we just look at what this witness has given us, a
15 statement. And if you want us to in any way establish something about
16 consistency with other statements, then what the witness has told is not
17 a sufficient basis for that. Because we don't know what it is, we don't
18 know whether it's in evidence.
19 Madam Registrar, the number?
20 THE REGISTRAR: D1336, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification pending translation
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise when I mentioned
24 witness Sabanic in my report, it is stated that it is P01913 --
25 JUDGE ORIE: No one asked you -- no one asked you any question at
1 this moment. It's --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to clarify.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It's appreciated. It's appreciated that you want to
4 assist us, but no one asked you. Mr. Lukic will deal with the matter, or
5 Ms. Edgerton.
6 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, it is P1915 where we can find this statement of
7 Ms. Sabina Sabanic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And not therefore P1913 as the witness said a
9 second ago?
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, also P1913.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So there are various statements --
12 MR. LUKIC: And P1914.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So we have three statements and it's for the Chamber
14 to check what we should make out of that. Okay. If that's what you wish
15 us to do, please proceed meanwhile.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Poparic, what is your conclusion? Where was the tram hit
18 from and where could it not have been hit from?
19 A. First of all, given the contradictory statements about the
20 location of the tram, I considered both variants: That it was hit at the
21 place asserted by Witness Karadzic, which is at the intersection between
22 the museum and the school of philosophy, and the other variant, that it
23 was hit close to the technical school, close to where the tram tracks
25 If the tram was hit at the intersection between the museum and
1 the school of philosophy, it could not have been targeted from the white
2 high-rise buildings. If it was at the other location, then it could not
3 have been targeted from the Metalka building but it could have been
4 targeted from the white high-rises in Grbavica. That is the basic
6 The basic conclusion is that in neither of the cases, the tram
7 was hit neither from the Metalka building nor from the white high-rises,
8 irrespective of where it was. I reached that conclusion based on facts.
9 In particular, the fact that the two women were wounded and on the basis
10 of their wounds. First of all, the police asserted that they were
11 wounded by one bullet which, when impacting the glass pane, shattered,
12 which is impossible. But when the tram stopped, they found a shattered
13 pane where the women were injured and their conclusion was that it was
14 the only way that the bullet had come through, falling apart and hitting
15 them both.
16 My conclusion is, given their position and their detailed
17 explanations and given the description of their wounds, that they could
18 only have been hit if the bullet came through the joint of the
19 articulated tram, the soft part, but in that case, it would have had to
20 have been from the building of the Executive Council of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and not from the Metalka or the white high-rises,
22 irrespective of the tram's location.
23 Q. We don't have much time left so I -- we need to go back to
24 1D05499; it is your report. I wanted to ask you something about F-17 of
25 the 6th of March, 1995, in Sedrenik Street --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The report is now D1330.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. [Interpretation] So D1330. Tarik Zunic was hid in Sedrenik on
4 his way back from school in that particular incident. We need
5 photograph 183 in your report.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the English it is page 249; in the
7 B/C/S 242.
8 Q. Can you briefly tell us what can be seen in the photograph.
9 A. This is a view of the place of incident, marked with the red
10 ellipsis, viewed from Spicasta Stijena. I took the photograph.
11 The buildings are small, but one could make out two specific
12 buildings with white roofs that are almost identical, and it was
13 important in order to pin-point the place of incident.
14 Q. What was the weapon that wounded Tarik Zunic?
15 A. According to the statements, it would have been an M84
17 Q. Statements?
18 A. Tarik Zunic's statement. He recognised the sound. Because the
19 M84 has a stronger piercing bullet than a simple rifle, and people could
20 recognise the sound produced by the weapon.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at 1D05628 next.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, just for your information, I wasn't able
23 to see on that photograph two buildings with white roofs, but I leave it
24 to that. If you have seen them, please be aware that I didn't see them.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. We need page 2 in both versions from this
2 statement of Tarik Zunic.
3 Q. [Interpretation] This is his statement of 10 November 1995. The
4 third paragraph in both versions. It says:
5 "On the day I was injured, I was wearing jeans and a green
6 jacket. It was cloudy but without fog. Spicasta Stijena was on my left
7 side at that moment. Having passed along this canvas protection I heard
8 two shots. I recognised immediately that the shots were fired by an M84
9 machine-gun. The sound is louder than the sound of ordinary rifles. I
10 can easily tell the difference because I had heard so many shots that it
11 is now possible for me to make this distinction."
12 That was it regarding the type of weapon, but how were you able
13 to establish the place where he was hit?
14 A. According to Tarik Zunic's statement, the incident took place
15 near a building with a double-slanted roof as can be seen --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the number
17 of photograph.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He marked the place --
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Stop. The interpreters did not hear the number.
21 A. Page 241, image 181 in the B/C/S.
22 Q. Who took photograph 181?
23 A. It was marked by Tarik Zunic. We visited that location, stopping
24 at the shop to inspect the site. However, the other building is almost
25 identical. There were some people there, and one of them called us and
1 told us it wasn't there, it was this way. They asserted he had been
2 wounded next to a pole that can be seen. Perhaps some 2 or 3 metres to
3 the right from it. They said he had been wounded there, and the person
4 in question claimed that he had helped him.
5 MS. EDGERTON: Could I --
6 MR. LUKIC: Just a bit of patience. We'll come there. Just a
7 bit of patience, we'll come to the transcript --
8 MS. EDGERTON: I just want to -- I just want to have --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. -- one second --
10 MR. LUKIC: Now you'll get it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic --
12 MR. LUKIC: She is just taking my time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: She has right to cross-examine the witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: I don't have much time left.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE ORIE: If Ms. Edgerton intervenes or wishes to object, she
20 has an opportunity to do so. And before you think you could refer to her
21 possibility to deal with the matter in cross-examination, we should first
22 hear what she wants to say. And that's what I'm going to do now, what
23 the Chamber's going to do now, hear what the objection is by
24 Ms. Edgerton.
25 Ms. Edgerton.
1 MS. EDGERTON: I actually only wanted to ask if we could just
2 have a look at the page where image 181 is in e-court so that we could
3 see what the witness was talking about. That was absolutely all.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Which is perfectly right.
5 Mr. Lukic, tell us what page in the report --
6 MR. LUKIC: So the Prosecution would tell me how do I --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
8 MR. LUKIC: -- conduct my examination.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. Last warning. Last warning or we'll ask
10 co-counsel to take over. Because what you are doing is totally
11 inappropriate. You can tell us now at what page we'll find the
12 photograph the witness testifies about and then we'll look at it so that
13 we are able to follow the testimony of this witness.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One observation on my part, Mr. Lukic. You asked
15 the witness who took photograph 181. This question is not answered.
16 Instead of answering that simple question, you let him go ten lines with
17 other explanation. This is consuming of your time.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So let's go back to the photograph. Photograph 181
19 is found on page?
20 MR. LUKIC: 248 in the English.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- it's --
22 MR. LUKIC: And 241 in B/C/S.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said 248 in English?
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll have a look at that and meanwhile
1 you may continue --
2 MR. LUKIC: It's upper image.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Poparic, do you know who took the photograph?
6 A. I don't. In any case, it was marked by Tarik Zunic.
7 Q. Where and when?
8 A. When he testified in the Milosevic case.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. LUKIC: Can we have 1D05629 on our screens now, please.
11 That's the testimony of Tarik Zunic on 7th February 2007, and we need
12 page 24 in e-court that would -- should correspond to transcript
13 page 1725. We need rows, or lines, 2 to 8.
14 Mr. Zunic was asked:
15 "Q. Were you carrying anything at that time?
16 "A. Yes. I had a blue rucksack with my schoolbooks and other
17 things on my right shoulder.
18 "Q. Could I ask you right now to stand up and show the Court how
19 you were carrying the rucksack at the time you were shot.
20 "A. I carried it over my right shoulder and I was holding it
21 with my right hand. Is this all right?"
22 Q. [Interpretation] Where was Tarik Zunic hit?
23 A. According to the medical documentation, he was hit in his right
24 lower arm, and the bullet left his body near the thumb, somewhere around
1 Q. What is your conclusion how was he hit?
2 A. Based on the statement, actually the testimony, and I wasn't able
3 to view the video, but I analysed all of the possibilities in terms of
4 how he might have carried his rucksack and how a bullet could have
5 arrived from Spicasta Stijena in order to hit him in the lower arm and
6 leave his body near the right thumb. This was the only position that
7 could have happened. Any other position, in my view, would be such that
8 the bullet would have had have come from a different side, from the
9 direction of Sedrenik instead of Spicasta Stijena.
10 On page 243, I illustrated it by providing photograph 184.
11 Q. Which forces were at Sedrenik?
12 A. Sedrenik was controlled by the Army of BiH.
13 MR. LUKIC: Just to go back --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one thing.
15 Your whole reconstruction is based on the description the witness
16 gave in his testimony in Milosevic as to how he was positioned and how
17 his rucksack was positioned. Is that well understood?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, he was walking down the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, yes, that's different, but I take your "yes"
21 for a confirmation.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I offered 1D05628 into evidence. It was
24 the --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the portion read? Or let me ...
1 MR. LUKIC: It was read, yes, some portion -- one portion is read
2 but it's the whole statement given to the Bosnian authorities.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, that statement, yes.
4 Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D05628 receives Exhibit Number D1337,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: I would offer part I read from 1D05629 if you deem it
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you read it, and of course a transcript of
12 witness in another case usually is dealt with under Rule 92 bis or 92
13 ter, but you read the whole portion and I think there was no objection to
14 it being read. And we now know at least what the basis this witness --
15 was for the witness to further elaborate on what he describes in his
17 Please proceed. There's no need, I think, to have it in
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 I would just ask Madam Registrar, with the help of the usher, to
23 provide Mr. Poparic with the exhibit, actually artefact, it's
24 Exhibit P02053, which is the tail-fin. And it's in connection with
25 Markale I.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Poparic, can you tell us what kind of shell it is by looking
4 at its tail-fin?
5 A. It's a 120-millimetre shell with the basic charge being M84.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: M74.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The basic or primary charge of that shell, can be impressed or
9 pushed in?
10 A. No, it has a thread, a groove, that can be used to screw it on
11 and that is the only way to connect it.
12 Q. The last thing you said did not make it into the transcript.
13 A. It is delivered with the tail-fin being screwed into the shell.
14 Some other shells, such as M49, of the older type did have different
15 solutions for that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is the tail-fin being screwed into the shell or are
17 you talking about the primary charge?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. The primary charge is
19 screwed into the tail-fin. I can even unscrew it now.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the question started with the primary
21 charge, and we slowly now moved to the tail-fin being screwed in, which
22 surprised me slightly, but I was seeking confirmation that that is what
23 you said or whether you wanted to say that the primary charge is screwed
24 into the tail-fin, the back end of the tail-fin.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps it was unclear. The basic
1 or primary charge is screwed in. That is what I was discussing.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. [Interpretation] You just told us that you could observe that the
6 primary charge can be rotated, just now?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you have in your hands the same tail-fin previously?
9 A. No. I'm afraid there's some misunderstanding. This tail-fin
10 comes from Markale II, whereas I had in my hands the tail-fin from the
11 Markale I incident.
12 MR. LUKIC: Then I confused the numbers. Can the witness be
13 provided with another one, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Another one or a specific one, Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: D402.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have a look at it. Yes.
17 Indeed, this one looks more like what we've seen before as
18 related to the Markale I incident.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Can you unscrew by hand the primary charge on this one?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Have you had this tail-fin in your hands previously?
23 A. Yes. And I also took photographs.
24 Q. On that occasion, were you able to observe whether the primary
25 charge can be unscrewed from the tail-fin?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Where did you examine the tail-fin, this one?
3 A. Here at the Tribunal on Defence premises.
4 Q. Who was present?
5 A. Mrs. Subotic, Aleksandar Stevanovic from Mr. Karadzic's Defence
6 team, and a representative of the Registry who delivered the tail-fin.
7 Q. Did you have any tools to unscrew it?
8 A. We did not, and yet we did try to unscrew it but were
10 I wasn't interested in unscrewing it. It was Mr. Stevanovic who
11 found it interesting, and he was trying to unscrew this end part but
13 Q. You worked on constructing different weapons, didn't you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. According to you, is it possible to move the primary charge in
16 relation to the tail-fin?
17 A. No. From my experience, I had scores of tail-fins, not just from
18 this type, but other types which had a similar solution with a thread.
19 It never happened that could you unscrew the tail-fin or is there any
20 force created during explosion that would make it possible to unscrew it.
21 What we have are just axial forces along the axis, and you can see that
22 on photographs of stabilisers from 82-millimetre shells where the primary
23 charge is pushed in, and then during explosions those axial forces
24 sometimes pull out the primary charge or it drops out which indicates
25 that the force that acts upon the tail-fin is axial force. It's not a
1 rotary force. There has to be some kind of rotational force for the
2 primary charge to be unscrewed.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we are coming close to where we should
4 take a break and you've used, until now, 4 hours and 56 minutes. So you
5 have another -- perhaps we take a little bit of a longer session, you
6 have another ten minutes left, and then we finish. And then after the
7 break, the Prosecution can start its cross-examination.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I would continue then.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Now we're going to look at photographs. Ms. Subotic spoke about
12 the two photographs that you processed and so we will just briefly
13 discuss those.
14 MR. LUKIC: Can we see 1D0598 [sic], please.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please repeat the number.
16 MR. LUKIC: 1D05498.
17 In B/C/S, first we need page 46. [Microphone not activated].
18 Maybe we should have only one version on our screen, for example, English
19 version. It's easier to follow. So we need page 46 in English as well.
20 No, we need the previous ...
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, this figure 14 we need.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Can you please tell us what you did. How did
24 you work on this?
25 A. Well, the question was how this photograph was made, what does it
1 show, what was changed in it. I made these comparative photographs. The
2 photograph on the left, which was taken by Roger Richards, was completely
3 untouched. The photograph on the right, which is from the photo file of
4 the police, was changed.
5 Why? What I wanted to do was to show more clearly the position
6 of the craters on the sidewalk in a more clear way so that the difference
7 between the two craters could be seen more easily. There was a problem
8 because the two photographs were taken from different angles, so then I
9 had to take this right-side photograph and I had to reduce the width of
10 the sidewalk to the width of the sidewalk -- I apologise, that you can
11 see on the left-hand photograph. And so there was a small modification
12 there in the way the photograph looks, and I think Judge Fluegge noticed
13 that. This was done in the OmniPage programme. It has that option. By
14 just shifting the grid a little bit you slightly change the perspective
15 of the photograph. In that way, nothing was modified that would affect
16 the drawing of conclusions in this case. The basic idea was to spot the
17 differences between the two craters more easily on the basis of the
18 position in relation to the sidewalk. I think that's obvious. The
19 photograph itself looks a little bit different in the photo file, but the
20 way it looks is closer to the way it actually looked --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last part of
22 that sentence.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. They didn't hear the last part of your previous sentence. So it
25 looked a bit closer to the way it actually looked in relation to what?
1 A. In relation to the sidewalk. To the sidewalk.
2 Q. All right. Let's move to the next thing. We don't have
3 time to -- let's look at the next paragraph --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm very sorry, but I want to put one question to
5 the witness, apart from the fact that I didn't deal with the system to
6 change the photograph.
7 What makes you certain that these two photographs depict the same
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm saying that they show
10 different traces. Because you see on the right-hand photograph the
11 entire crater is greater than the pavement slabs. And here on the
12 left-hand photograph, it's just halfway. So it's obvious that they are
13 different craters. This is what we assert in our report.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
15 Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: And -- thank you, Your Honour. And just to move to
17 figure 17 now. It's on page 48 in English.
18 Q. [Interpretation] And did you process this photograph? What did
19 you do?
20 A. Yes, this is a processed photograph. This is a part of the
21 photograph of Roger Richards. And here, there's an orthogonal projection
22 of the photograph of the crater, so we have lost a part of the picture.
23 That's why we have a blank corner, angle, here. Because when you change
24 the angle of the perspective you lose a part of the photograph. So we
25 have a orthogonal photograph here on the basis of which the conclusion
1 was drawn that the angle of impact was quite large, from 81 to 83
2 degrees. And in my opinion, this is a very accurate method because the
3 circumstances happen to be such that we knew the size of the pavement
4 slabs and on the basis of that you could determine the size of the crater
5 and so on and so forth. It's pretty accurate.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- Mr. Lukic, yes, I know that you get that
7 one minute extra.
8 Could you tell us what makes you so sure which of the two
9 photographs depicts, if they are different, which of the ones depicts the
10 place of the impact as charged? I mean, which is the one which relates
11 to the -- what happened, the one taken by Mr. - what was his name? -
12 Mr. Roger Richards, or the other one?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is our opinion that the place of
14 impact is shown in the photograph made by Mr. Roger Richards. I will
15 explain why. Because -- and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if it is -- well, I don't want to take more
17 time from Mr. Lukic. And I take that we'll find in your report anyhow?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I have only one more
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Poparic, other than these two photographs, did you alter in
25 any way any other photographs that were in your reports?
1 A. No, we did not alter the photographs. Sometimes we added
2 something, we drew in lines.
3 Q. Did you change perspectives?
4 A. No, we did not change perspective in any other photographs. Only
5 in these two photographs that we looked at.
6 Q. Mr. Poparic, thank you very much for answering our questions.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Poparic, we'll take a break. You're invited to
8 follow the usher. We take a break a little bit longer. We'll resume at
9 quarter to 12.00. We'd like to see you back then.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break of half an hour.
12 --- Recess taken at 11.12 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.47 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We are waiting for the witness to be escorted into
15 the courtroom.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Poparic, you'll now be cross-examined by
19 Ms. Edgerton. You find Ms. Edgerton to your right. Ms. Edgerton is
20 counsel for the Prosecution.
21 Ms. Edgerton, you may proceed.
22 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton:
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. I want to begin by just getting you to confirm my understanding
2 of your general methodology as you approached the investigation of the
3 range of incidents that are in your report. Some are scheduled, some are
4 unscheduled, some have been dropped, but there's a wide range of them.
5 So, first of all, generally speaking, it's correct, isn't it,
6 that you -- when it came to the location of some Scheduled Incidents, in
7 fact, a number of Scheduled Incidents, you didn't rely on the evidence of
8 the victims, as we saw, for example, yesterday in the film clip relating
9 to F-5, or the witnesses, as we saw yesterday on the film clip relating
10 to F-9. You discounted that evidence; right?
11 A. I would not agree with that. When we went to the scene, we had
12 in mind all the available documents that we had at that point in time.
13 We did get some later. But, for example, if we're talking about video
14 footage, the recordings made by Barry Hogan, we received those later,
15 once we had done the investigation on the scene. But we did have
16 everything that was available to us at the time.
17 Q. I don't find you've answered to my question but we'll come back
18 to those specific incidents and move on on this topic.
19 As part of your methodology, it was also, generally speaking,
20 your practice to discount the results of contemporaneous investigations,
21 like, for example, the UNPROFOR report you referred to in passing
22 yesterday, which is P670 in F -- in relation to F-11. That's the report
23 where, if you'll remember because you mentioned it -- what they did
24 yesterday, the report where they stuck antennas into the furrows in the
25 grass. You discounted the results of contemporaneous investigations like
1 that; right?
2 A. No, no. When you mentioned the report, the first time I heard of
3 that report was when I testified in the Karadzic case, and you read an
4 excerpt from that report to me and mentioned the antennas. That was the
5 first time that I heard of them. I didn't even know that there was such
6 a report, which I am sorry about because without it, our job was much
7 more difficult. It would have been much easier had we had that report
9 Q. Well, can you answer my question? My question was: You
10 discounted that report in your own analysis; right?
11 A. I did take it into account in the present analysis. Not in the
12 analysis in the Karadzic case because I didn't have it then. But in the
13 present report, it was -- it was dealt with in detail.
14 Q. Let me try asking you another way. You specifically rejected the
15 results of UNPROFOR's contemporaneous investigation in relation to
16 incident F-11; right? That's what I mean by the word "discounted."
17 A. I did not agree with some of the parts of that report but I did
18 accept other parts. But I did not completely agree with the conclusions
19 given in the report by UNPROFOR. Even there in the report, there is a
20 report of the 8th and then of the 10th, so there are some inconsistencies
21 in the two reports which were drafted by members of UNPROFOR.
22 My answer is that I did not discount everything, and I did not
23 accept everything. I did accept some things.
24 Q. I'm going to try and be as specific as I can in relation to the
25 documents I mention, and I'd like to you confine your answers to those
1 documents, all right?
2 Now, you also, from your reading your report, specifically
3 discounted the work of local investigators; for example, the work that
4 was done in relation to the incident that's labelled F-15 in your report,
5 where you allege that Bosnian investigators doctored a picture. Right?
6 So you specifically -- by making that allegation you specifically reject
7 the contemporaneous local investigation; right?
8 A. That is quite true. I dealt with that in detail and explain why
9 I asserted that. They did draw in a detail and said that that was
10 exit-entrance on the tram, but actually that was incorrect. The exit
11 point was much lower. But it's true, yes, that that's what happened and
12 I gave an explanation of why that was.
13 Q. And we'll come back to that too. Also, in terms of your
14 methodology, you didn't go to all the incident locations; right?
15 A. I don't think so, no. But please let me just refresh my memory,
16 if you think that I am not correct on this point.
17 Q. Well, it's correct, isn't it, that you didn't go, you weren't
18 able to go to the specific incident location for F-1 because it was
19 physically impossible to do so. The site had changed since
20 Mr. Van der Weijden's visit; right? You didn't go to the incident
21 location. Yes or no?
22 MR. LUKIC: Objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes -- one second.
24 Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: Objection. Then we have to have the definition of
1 the location. If it's -- he -- this witness didn't go because something
2 changed, does that mean that he didn't go.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's not an objection in itself. But apparently,
4 Ms. Edgerton, Mr. Lukic has some concerns about going somewhere if the
5 appearance of that location changed. What do you mean exactly? Could
6 you seek to clarify that.
7 MS. EDGERTON: Of course.
8 Q. You weren't able to visit the incident location for
9 Scheduled Incident F-1 because it simply no longer existed; correct? The
10 site had been changed. The house had been changed. Right?
11 A. The house had changed. I explain that here. A room was
12 attached, built in front of the front door. I don't know if
13 Mr. Van der Weijden was there so it was impossible to get to that place.
14 But the photograph that I made together with Mr. Van der Weijden is
15 quite --
16 Q. I didn't ask you about the photograph. I want to go on because
17 you asked me to be a little bit more precise to some of the other
18 incident locations that you couldn't visit.
19 It's correct, isn't it, because you confirmed it in your
20 testimony in the Karadzic case, that you also didn't visit the incident
21 location in respect of incident F-2 in your report?
22 A. F-2 ... excuse me. Allow me just to refresh my memory about
23 that. I don't know if I went by dates here. Yes.
24 Q. You can find it at paragraph 37 of your report.
25 A. Yes, yes, clear. I found it. I was in front of that house, and
1 I explained that at the time I was not at the actual location because
2 it's been changed. (redacted)
3 (redacted) so I thought that
4 I shouldn't be going there anyway. But the location was changed, yes,
5 like in the previous instance.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Could we go into private session for a moment,
7 please, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
9 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
1 Q. And you also didn't visit the location of the
2 Unscheduled Incident with the date of 22 November 1994, which is referred
3 to at English page 255 and B/C/S page 249 of your report; right? You
4 didn't go there. You made your analysis on the basis of videos and
6 A. Just give me a moment, please. I just want to remind myself what
7 exactly that is.
8 22nd of November, 1994. 249. I apologise.
9 Q. It starts at paragraph 253.
10 A. Yes, yes -- no, I was there. I was in that street. Rogina
11 Street. I was there.
12 Q. Thank you. Did you go to the specific incident location for the
13 incident you describe as number 9 from 15 May 1995 in your Annex 6,
14 paragraph 41?
15 A. I apologise. Perhaps you can assist me by describing it. It
16 would make it easier for me than to go by paragraph number.
17 MR. LUKIC: So we can follow as well.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 40? Maybe I'll find it. Just one
20 MS. EDGERTON: It's the incident of -- can I just repeat it for
21 my friend Mr. Lukic. It's the incident of small-arms fire in Djordja
22 Andrejevica Kuna Street number 7 on 15 May 1995. Thank you.
23 MR. LUKIC: And the page number? Thank you.
24 MS. EDGERTON: The English page number is 346. It's
25 paragraph 41, incident 9 in Annex 6.
1 MR. LUKIC: The witness has B/C/S version in front of him. Can
2 you provide us with B/C/S page number?
3 MS. EDGERTON: I think he's found it, actually.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Have you found it, Witness?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have. I can respond.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, then.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I visited the location. If you
8 have in mind the apartment itself, I didn't go into the apartment. But I
9 lived in a neighbouring building in an apartment that looked exactly like
10 that because they are all of the same type. I am fully aware of both the
11 location and the apartment.
12 MS. EDGERTON:
13 Q. Okay. But however aware you might be, the fact is, you
14 weren't -- you didn't go to the specific, the physical -- you didn't
15 physically go to the specific incident location for your
16 Unscheduled Incident 9. You weren't in the apartment; right?
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In fact, this question is answered.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not physically. I did not go
19 there physically.
20 MS. EDGERTON:
21 Q. And you also didn't go to the specific incident location of your
22 Unscheduled Incident number 10 -- or pardon me, the Unscheduled Incident
23 of 10 December 1994, which is at English page 259 and B/C/S page 253;
25 A. Just one moment. I need to jog my memory.
1 Q. You did your --
2 A. Yes. It is correct that I wasn't at that particular place but I
3 did visit the location. I didn't go to the exact spot, that is correct.
4 Q. Just one further question, then, with respect to that incident.
5 So you never went, if I understand you correctly, you never went
6 to the exact GPS co-ordinates that were identified in relation to that
7 incident at all; right?
8 A. I did not go to the place of the co-ordinates, but I did visit
9 the area and I saw the surroundings.
10 Q. Now, just on the subject of GPS co-ordinates, it's correct that
11 in going to the locations that you did visit, you didn't use a GPS at
12 all, did you?
13 A. I did not use it because there was no need.
14 Q. So, in fact, you completely discounted the GPS co-ordinates for
15 any of these incidents for the incident locations as well as the assessed
16 origins of fire, even though you had those co-ordinates available to you;
18 A. The co-ordinates were provided only by Mr. Van der Weijden, if I
19 remember well. There are some mentioned in certain UNPROFOR reports, but
20 more when it comes to shelling.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The question was not who gave those co-ordinates but
22 whether you ignored them. That was the question.
23 Could you please answer that question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I said that I did not rely on
25 them because they were not necessary for my report.
1 MS. EDGERTON:
2 Q. And if I can just remind you of what you said in the Karadzic
3 case, and if you would like we can display the transcript so you can read
4 it, in fact what you said about GPS -- having a GPS system was that you
5 didn't see a reason to use one because having a GPS system wouldn't have
6 made a big difference. And that's at Karadzic transcript page 39181,
7 lines 2 to 12.
8 So let us know if you'd like to see it. I could show it to you.
9 But, if not, tell me if you agree or stand by the evidence you gave
11 A. No need, thank you. I think I've answered already and I stand by
12 it. And I can explain why.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask a question in this respect.
14 You emphasised various times during the examination-in-chief how
15 important it was to know exactly where -- where incidents took place,
16 what the location was, and you are now telling us that you didn't need
17 GPS for that, which is a relatively objective and also a relatively - but
18 correct me when I'm wrong - a relatively accurate way of defining a
19 certain location.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're absolutely right. But in
21 this case, I did not have reliable information about GPS co-ordinates so
22 as to say the shooter was at this or that co-ordinate. If I had had such
23 information, it would have been important for me to find it. But I did
24 not have it. Therefore, I can measure all you like but ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: But we're not only talking about location of
1 shooters, I think, but - please correct me when I'm wrong, Ms. Edgerton -
2 we're also talking about locations where people who were hit by bullets
3 were found.
4 MS. EDGERTON: Indeed, my specific examples in relation to the
5 victims, the first questions related to F-5 and F-16.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you were mainly focusing --
7 MS. EDGERTON: Which is where the victims -- or about where the
8 victims were found.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness, could you please then answer my
10 question as well, why GPS doesn't assist in any way if it comes to the
11 locations where victims said they had been or where they have been
12 reported to have been when they were struck by bullet fire?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll answer that. There were only
14 a few cases where we know exactly where the victims were. For example,
15 the case under the bridge, I don't know what incident number it is
16 exactly. But there we have a clear description, so that location is
17 fully known and defined. The edge of the river. All tram sites were
18 defined by the rails, whether they were straight or bent, and what
19 intersection between the museum and the school of philosophy. So there
20 are several locations that in and of themselves are sufficiently defined
21 and co-ordinates wouldn't help. On the other hand, I don't know the
22 co-ordinates of the shooters.
23 JUDGE ORIE: What about F-5?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me remind myself.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mother and daughter, where you drew all kind of
1 conclusions on the basis of one step taken.
2 MS. EDGERTON: [Microphone not activated]
3 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise. I mean F-4.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is fully defined, F-4. It was
5 fully defined. It's known exactly. The pavement. No mistake there.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I can get clarification.
8 Sir, you keep referring to not having co-ordinates of the
9 shooter. Was the exercise that you were undertaking not, in fact,
10 supposed to determine where the shooter might have been given the other
11 information? In other words, if we had known where the shooter was, the
12 whole exercise would be futile. There's no need for the exercise. Then
13 we just say, There's the shooter. So why do you expect, then, that you
14 should have had co-ordinates for the shooter?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try to answer although I'm not
16 certain I understand.
17 It is very important to know where the source of fire was but we
18 didn't have that information. In my analysis --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's the purpose of the investigation.
20 That's the purpose of the investigation. So you can't investigate that
21 which you already -- let me, sir. You can't investigate that which you
22 already know. If you have the co-ordinate of the shooter, then there is
23 no need for the investigation.
24 The investigation is being undertaken to determine precisely
25 who -- where the -- first the direction and then possibly to find out
1 where the shooter might have been. That's the purpose of the
2 investigation. Therefore you cannot have, in advance, co-ordinates of
3 the shooter. Can you?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not complaining about not
5 having received co-ordinates, but I'm just saying that if I had used a
6 GPS device it would not have been of much help.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You are not answering my question. Thank
8 you so much.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
10 MS. EDGERTON:
11 Q. And just talking about the locations of the shooter, to go back
12 to locations that you didn't visit, it's correct, isn't it, that you
13 haven't been anywhere in any of the white sky-scrapers that are the
14 alleged origins of fire for a number of tram sniping incidents?
15 A. It is correct that I did not go to the sky-scrapers, but I did
16 accept the position that there were sniping positions there and I am
17 fully cognizant of their co-ordinates as well as their direction. I even
18 have photographs from the sky-scrapers where one can see what the
19 visibility was of particular areas. I think I had sufficient information
20 to assess ...
21 Q. Mr. Poparic, we'll come to that too. In terms of other assessed
22 origins of fire that you didn't visit, it's also correct that you have
23 never been inside the school for the blind; right?
24 A. I was next to the school for the blind several times. I wasn't
25 inside the building itself. It was reconstructed in the meantime. There
1 wasn't much for me to see.
2 Q. Now, just to move on in terms of your site visits, because you've
3 made more than one, in fact you've made several, it sounds like, you were
4 taken to locations by a local who, among other things, had been a member
5 of a tank crew in the SRK; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, in terms of your professional background, it's correct that
8 you have no formal training in criminal investigation whatsoever; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. No formal training -- you also have no formal training in
11 forensic pathology; right?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. You're not a doctor; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And as you said yesterday, you're not a lawyer. You confirm
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You've never been a judge?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You have no formal legal training; right?
21 A. Formal? Yes.
22 Q. Does that mean that you're confirming my question: Have you had
23 formally legal training, yes or no?
24 A. It's difficult to answer that. I do have a certain level of
25 education and training, but I don't know what level is of interest. It
1 is difficult for me to answer precisely. I'm not someone who has
2 absolutely no legal knowledge, but I can't define what level of legal
3 knowledge that would be.
4 Q. Have you ever been to law school?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And it's also correct, isn't it, that you have no experience in
7 geographical survey; right?
8 A. Well, I do have some kind of military professional training
9 because we were doing something in terms of surveying, but let's say I
10 don't have it. I don't.
11 Q. I want to talk a little bit now about the map that you refer to
12 in your report and that you took cutouts from in your report. And those
13 appear at pages 56, 104, and 127 in English, and 59, 105, and 125 in your
14 language. And you also mentioned the map in your testimony yesterday at
15 transcript pages 40448, 40473 to -74, and 40487.
16 Now, it's correct, isn't it, that that map has an operative date
17 of March 1st to 14 September 1995?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, you don't say that anywhere in your report, do you?
20 A. I don't know whether it was stated so, but the reference is there
21 to the map. I don't know whether the dates are mentioned though.
22 Q. I'd like you to go have a look at page 59 and tell me whether you
23 see the operative date of the map that you've just confirmed there.
24 A. This is a part of the map, since it's a large map.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have it on our screens.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can't be seen.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it 59 in B/C/S?
3 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And 56 in English.
5 MS. EDGERTON: Correct. Correct. And, for the record, that's --
6 that -- this cutout is taken from Exhibit P2952, page 1.
7 Q. So you don't see anywhere on this page reference -- you don't
8 point out anywhere on this page that you're using a map from 1995, do
10 A. It can't be seen in this cutout.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we see the footnote in the English version.
12 I think there's a reference, footnote 44 in relation to image 27:
13 "The image is part of the operations map of the commander of the
14 BH army's 12th Division."
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: But it doesn't give the dates.
16 MS. EDGERTON: Correct. There's no reference to date which is
17 what the focus of my question is about, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now I understood this.
19 MS. EDGERTON:
20 Q. And, in fact, nowhere in your report do you point out that you're
21 using a map from 1995 as evidence of the positions of the front line in
22 relation to an incident in September 1994 in Hrasno, that's F-4; and
23 November 1993 in Brijesce Brdo, that's F-5.
24 So you haven't told us within the 300-plus pages of your report
25 that the map you're using to illustrate the front lines isn't even
1 from -- as of the date of these incidents, isn't even from the year in
2 which the incidents happened; right?
3 A. I wouldn't agree. There's a reference for the map and on the map
4 can you see it in big letters, if you show it. You can see the dates for
5 the map. I may have referenced the date, but I don't think it's a major
6 error. I didn't hide anything. Whoever wanted to look at the integral
7 map would see it for themselves. There's nothing secret about it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I directly ask the question to you.
9 You are you using these extracts of these maps to support your
10 conclusions about an event which took place at a certain date. Those
11 maps are not valid for that date. Do you consider that you should have
12 drawn our attention to the fact that this portion of the underlying
13 information you used may be inaccurate because it refers -- it's not
14 related to the same date? Or do you consider it, as an expert witness,
15 better to say: Well, if you want to find out this discrepancy, go to the
16 original map, look at the dates, and then you'll find what I at least
17 have not explicitly stated in my report?
18 Which of the two do you think would be appropriate? You drawing
19 our attention to it or we doing the puzzle journey and try to find out
20 that there is some discrepancy of which we do not know yet how important
21 or how unimportant it is? Which of the two do you think would be
22 appropriate to do?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation], of course, it would be more
24 appropriate for me to mention it, but I'll explain why I didn't. The map
25 was used so many times, and by inertia, I just referenced it without
1 specifying the date. It was no intention on my part to hide anything.
2 You are correct, it would have been more appropriate to have stated a
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Should you have used it at all, if it's not
5 applicable for the time of the incident, to draw any conclusions on?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I gave it some thought, but I
7 had many other documents specifying in which parts the separation lines
8 did not change. In the Sarajevo theatre, since it was very specific,
9 there were very few changes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So you drew conclusions without specifying why you
11 drew that conclusion. I'm not saying whether they are right or wrong,
12 but you considered it not necessary to explain to us that although the
13 map is wrong, at least is not applicable for that date, that for other
14 reasons you think it is still reliable enough to use.
15 Is that your position?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true I did not do that, but
17 in most cases I did say that I visited the locations and that it was my
18 assessment that it tallied. Specifically, for example, F-4, where the
19 mother and child were, I told you I was there, and I told you that the
20 set-up of the area was such so as to confirm what we see on the map. In
21 many other cases, as can be seen in these photographs here, I visited --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I interrupt you there. We are exclusively
23 talking about maps with separation lines.
24 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
25 MS. EDGERTON:
1 Q. You just mentioned F-4. And in relation to this same map, I want
2 to jump over to that incident for a minute, and you can find it beginning
3 at page 100 in your language of your report, and that covers
4 paragraphs 64 to 79. And, in English, it begins at page 97. And in
5 relation to this map, I want to draw your attention specifically to your
6 image 73. All right? That's at English page 104.
7 So you used this map that you've got the cutout of here and you
8 confirmed it yesterday. You used markings on this map to establish that
9 the closest VRS position could have been at around 680 metres from the
10 spot where the two victims were shot. And that was at transcript
11 page 40448, lines 11 to 12. And you said that you either couldn't
12 determine visibility of the incident site, at transcript page 40448, or
13 that there was no line of sight from this position 680 metres away, and
14 that was at 40473.
15 Now, the basis -- it's correct, isn't it, that the basis for your
16 determination of the position of the front lines is a pencil mark on this
17 map; right?
18 A. Which line do you have in mind?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The lawyer is talking of a mark, not a line.
20 MS. EDGERTON:
21 Q. Look at your paragraph 70. You said the separation line along
22 this stretch of Ozrenska Street shifted towards Ivana Krndelja Street by
23 about 100 metres, image 73, meaning that the closest positions of the
24 Army of the Republika Srpska could have been around 680 metres from the
25 spot where the two victims were shot.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we please be shown paragraph 70. Thank you.
2 MS. EDGERTON:
3 Q. Now, in the Karadzic case, during your testimony there, you
4 confirmed that the basis for the statement that I've just read out is a
5 pencil mark that you found on the map. And if you would like to see that
6 reference, we can have a look at it. It's at Karadzic transcript
7 page 39229, and it's 65 ter number 32790, e-court page 67, but let us
8 know if you need to see it.
9 A. I don't know which one you mean. There are two lines here, drawn
10 in markers. I don't know which pen you mean.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Let's go over to the Karadzic transcript, please,
12 if we could. As I mentioned 3 --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you direct the witness to what you mean
14 by pencil marking.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Oh --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: He didn't understand you.
17 MS. EDGERTON: I couldn't see it in this version of his report.
18 It's only visible in the Karadzic version of his report so I would like
19 to get him to have a look at his assertions in the Karadzic case at this
21 JUDGE ORIE: What I suggest is that we have the Karadzic
22 transcript on the right-hand side and that we keep on the left-hand side
23 the map so that can you read from the transcript and that we could, at
24 the same time, have a look at the map. If at least you have a 65 ter
25 number for the upload of the Karadzic transcript.
1 MS. EDGERTON: 32790, please.
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar informs me that we do not have a
4 document under that number. Let's have a look at your ...
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: It has been released now, I understand. So could we
7 have a look at on the one side of the screen the Karadzic transcript, and
8 you indicate what page, Ms. Edgerton, and then we keep the map on the
9 other side.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In your list of documents to be used, it is
11 indicated that it is under seal. But this part is in open session, and,
12 therefore, there may be no problem.
13 MS. EDGERTON:
14 Q. So at lines -- I'll actually read to you lines -- you can read
15 English a little bit also, I think, Mr. Poparic, can't you? But I'll
16 read to you --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I'll read to you lines 1 to 8 so it can be translated and then
19 perfectly clear.
20 In Karadzic, I asked you:
21 "Q. Mr. Poparic, I'd like to move on to another incident now and
22 it's incident F-4, that's the first one that you spoke about in your
23 examination-in-chief, and it's at paragraphs 53 to 61 of your report.
24 And just a couple of brief questions. In paragraph 59, when you say that
25 the line shifted towards Ivana Krndelja Street by about 100 metres, your
1 basis for that is the pencil mark on the cutout of the 1995 dated map we
2 discussed earlier today; right?"
3 That was my question to you.
4 And you responded: "That's right."
5 And then, if we -- to be perfectly fair, I'll read to you your
6 answers after "that's right." You said:
7 "A. That's right. But when we come to the site itself, then we
8 see that it couldn't have been any different in view of the configuration
9 of the terrain. It either could have been there or up there in
11 And then I said:
12 "Q. Thank you for that, but I want you to focus on my questions.
13 My next question about that map is: Do you know who made the pencil
15 And you said:
16 "A. I can't see [sic]. I cannot see the map."
17 And then I directed you to your report.
18 And then if we go down to line 18, you said:
19 "Yes, that's the map that was cited. The working map of the
20 Chief of Staff of the 12th Division ..."
21 And then I said:
22 "... you don't know who made the pencil mark, do you?
23 And then you said:
24 "I see those markings in blue and red, is that what you mean?"
25 And I said:
1 "No. I was referring to the pencil mark ..."
2 And then you said:
3 "There's a straight line, if that's what you mean. I don't know,
4 but I did not mark anything on this map ..."
5 So my question is: What's the basis for your statement that the
6 line shifted -- your statement that we see in your report today in this
7 case, that the line shifted towards Ivana Krndelja Street by about
8 100 metres?
9 A. The basis for my assertion is this red and blue line that is
10 drawn in the working map of the Chief of Staff, and I said that in the
11 Karadzic case, and I said it here. By going to the scene, we saw that
12 that's how it should have been or that the forces of the Army of
13 Republika Srpska were up in Ozrenska because of the configuration of the
14 terrain. Perhaps that's why it was moved a bit forward. I don't see
15 what -- what the problem is.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: When did you go to the scene?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was there in 2010 and 2011, I
18 think, in May.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I'm sorry. It was in 2012,
21 in December. 2012, in December.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And by going to the scene you established that
23 the confrontation line has shifted 100 metres? Is that what you are
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I established that this line,
1 as it was drawn here on this working map, corresponds to the situation in
2 the field. We had information, and I mentioned that during the
3 examination-in-chief, about the place where the trenches of the Army of
4 Republika Srpska were. And the configuration of the terrain is such that
5 you have Ozrenska Street and then there is a kind of hole, and then there
6 is a flat part and then again there is a slope, and these lines actually
7 indicate that situation, meaning that --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have answered the question. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, that does correspond
11 to that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Do I then understand that you went to the location
13 exactly where these lines, the blue and the red ones, are, you visited
14 those locations, or did you view it from the location where the mother
15 and the girl were when they were hit?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I was there. I went to
17 that location.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you saw that it had shifted
19 100 metres? How did you ... how did you see that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I wanted to double-check
21 whether this line, since it's pulled forward, whether it was logical for
22 it to be that way. And I saw for myself that that's how the terrain was.
23 It had to be drawn the way it was. Either that or they were up in
24 Ozrenska because of the terrain that forms a kind of hole, indentation.
25 Nobody would enter that. It doesn't make sense to have positions there.
1 So the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska were at the exposed
2 parts and then the slope comes. And it doesn't make any sense to have
3 your positions on the slope because it would put them in a dangerous
4 position. There was a 200-metre difference between the warring parties
5 because of the slope, and it's not logical to be there because you do not
6 want do expose yourself to the danger, and that's why this line makes
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say: Logic tells me that it is likely
9 that it's correct. Did you read any specific evidence about where the
10 separation line was at the time? Witnesses who have testified bout what
11 was at Ozrenska Street, what was -- how far it was away, did you read any
12 evidence on that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? Okay. What did -- then please tell us what
15 you read exactly.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to what I read, that the
17 witnesses said --
18 JUDGE ORIE: No. Witness, first tell us what you read.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read where the trenches of the
20 Army of Republika Srpska were --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, no. You are telling us what you read. But
22 I would like to know which witness statement or testimony or whatever.
23 What is it --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ah, yes, which document.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What is it exactly what you read about ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read the witness -- statement by
2 RM147, he was a Prosecution witness. And I think also the transcript, a
3 part of the transcript, I read that. I read the transcript of a witness
4 in the Karadzic case, Slobodan -- I can't remember. Maybe I'll remember
5 it later. So they described more or less where the positions and the
6 trenches were, and that was something that was of help to me.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And was it consistent with these lines or ... did
8 they confirm the accuracy of these lines?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They did not mention or confirm the
10 entire line but they did confirm these exposed positions, with the help
11 of photographs as well. And that was of help.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Please proceed.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: One little question.
15 Was this map an operative map as at the time of the incident?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to what it says, the map
17 was not an operative one. It was drafted later, I believe.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
21 Q. We are going to come back to the question of the shift, but I'd
22 like to go right into a Scheduled Incident, and that's F-5.
23 Now -- and that's at English page 121 and B/C/S page 120. So
24 just so you know, I'm always just going to give you the page references
25 where the sections on that incidents begin. And it covers paragraphs 80
1 to 94.
2 Now, in the video that we saw yesterday relating to this
3 incident, you remember we saw the victim standing on the place where she
4 says she got shot and pointing down the road. So you remember seeing
5 that on the left-hand side of the screen -- and we can show the video
6 again if you want but we can also go to your report. On the left-hand
7 side of the screen there's an elevation supported by a concrete wall, and
8 on the right-hand side of the screen of the video we saw yesterday there
9 was a hill with a radio tower. You remember seeing that; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you saw the victim yesterday pointing down that road, that
12 natural tunnel, to indicate the direction of fire from which she was
13 shot; right? We saw it yesterday.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you said what you could establish with certainty is that the
16 positions of the VRS were visible from that place that was shown by the
17 victim. And that was at transcript page 40485, lines 22 to 24. Do you
18 remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Right. Let's have a look at 65 ter number 33226.
21 MS. EDGERTON: Maybe what we could -- yes, if we could just
22 enlarge that.
23 Q. So what we've got on this page is, on the top part of the page,
24 exhibit -- we have an image that appears on page 29 of
25 Mr. Van der Weijden's report, which is P1130, and on the bottom is we
1 have part of your image 88. If you want to go to page 128 in your
2 report, you can see that. It's the little yellow box that's on the top
3 right of your image 188 [sic].
4 Now, that blue dot on Mr. Van der Weijden's report, the image
5 from Mr. Van der Weijden's report, marks the location at which we saw the
6 victim standing yesterday, the place where she was shot. And you know,
7 because you studied his report, that Mr. Van der Weijden drew those based
8 on GPS co-ordinates.
9 Now, on the bottom right is your location. And what we did using
10 Google Earth, which you use a lot, with the image on the left, is we
11 mapped out the difference between the actual incident location as
12 identified in Mr. Van der Weijden's report, which is the blue dot, and
13 where you argue it happened. All right? And I'm going to show you --
14 I'm going to ask you a question, actually.
15 So in your image, in your report relative to this incident, what
16 you did is plot the incident site far and away down the road from where
17 the victim indicated she was shot, didn't you?
18 A. I am not quite sure.
19 Q. Well, let's go on to a second image --
20 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 33227.
21 Q. -- which might help you in being a little bit more sure.
22 So what we did here -- what this is, is a screen capture from
23 Google Earth using the Google Earth ruler between the locations that we
24 saw on the previous 65 ter number, one of which was yours and one of
25 which was Mr. Van der Weijden's. What you did was you plotted the
1 incident site for F-5, by the Google Earth ruler, 130 metres down the
2 road from where the victim says it actually happened.
3 Are you sure now?
4 A. The buildings are located in a very similar way. I assume that
5 you are correct, but it's practically along the same direction, if that's
6 what you're trying to say. It's along the same direction.
7 Q. No, what I'm asking is whether you now agree that you plotted the
8 incident site for F-5 130 metres down the road from where the victim says
9 it actually happened.
10 A. I didn't plot anything. I was at that location, and I recognise
11 that here. It seems to be a very similar location. Possibly it's an
12 error. I mean, if I made an error, then that's that.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have these two images as Prosecution
14 exhibits, please, Your Honour, 33226 and 33227.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33226 receives Exhibit Number P7591.
17 Document 33227 receives Exhibit Number P7592.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Both admitted into evidence.
19 Witness, if you concede that there may be an error, what then
20 determined for you where to go? Did you consult the police reports and
21 did you compare what was shown on pictures? What caused it that you are
22 130 metres possibly wrong?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no police report on this
24 incident. I used the photographs that I had, and I went to the scene,
25 and I recognise this place as the place of the incident. But I cannot
1 confirm if I made an error or not, but let's assume that Ms. Edgerton is
2 correct. I cannot confirm to you whether I made an error or not.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Which photographs did you use?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have these photographs here
5 from the file, and I have those that I made so ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: But, of course, I'm asking about the photographs you
7 used to identify the location where it had happened. Which ones did you
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have my own photographs. My own
10 photographs that are not here, that I made at the scene and ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, Witness. Witness, before you can make
12 photographs at the scene, you must -- first must have identified the
13 location. My question is: How did you identify the location? And then
14 you said: I did that on the basis of photographs, and then I went to the
16 So I'm asking you now which photographs you used to identify the
17 location where you then went.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We had the photographs from
19 image 86. We had a description of the scene. And there are some other
20 photographs that were not given here that we had at our disposal which
21 were in the case file. And I was also at the place that was seen in the
22 footage. There's no dilemma there.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there may be a dilemma, but -- so it was on
24 the basis of photographs and on the basis of description.
25 Let's ...
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have a follow-up question.
3 You're now referring to a case file. What do you mean by that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The documents that I received from
5 the Defence, I refer to that as the case file. When we began our work,
6 we received various documents, and among them there were photographs of
7 the scene. There was one photograph where there were markings of what
8 was changed on the buildings. Something was added on, a garage was built
9 on. So we did have enough photographs to be able to identify it, and we
10 were definitely at the place that we see in the footage and so on.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Who took these photographs that you received from
12 the Defence?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know who took them. They
14 had the ERN numbers and so on. I think they were used in previous cases.
15 The Galic case. It was probably somebody from the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you establish when these photographs were
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not establish when they were
19 taken, but it was said that there was some changes in relation to the
20 previous state on this building, so ...
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Who said that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in the witness statements.
23 They were explaining photographs. The photographs were attached to
24 statements. They were explaining the photographs. And then on the
25 photographs they marked what was added on and so on.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm putting these questions to because you
2 earlier said:
3 "There is no police report on this incident."
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. There is just a police
5 note that Ms. Ramiza Kundo was injured, but there is no on-scene
6 investigation or investigation. There was a photograph showing the part
7 of the building that was added on, meaning that it was taken
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: How do you know that?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in the statements.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The photographs were attached to
13 the statements, and the statements describe what was done with the
14 photographs, et cetera.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it possible to have the photographs that you
17 used to determine the location side by side with this photograph so that
18 we make a comparison?
19 I guess the question is partly to you, Madam Edgerton, if this
20 can be done.
21 MS. EDGERTON: I have no idea what the witness used,
22 Your Honours. But technically the side by side can be achieved. But I
23 have absolutely no idea what he used.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I'm sure the photograph that you used, as you
25 say it was in the case file, it must be in your report. Do you think you
1 can show it the court usher so that we can put it on the screen?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I probably have it, and I have the
3 photographs I took to confirm that I actually visited the scene.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not asking about the photographs that you
5 took, sir. Judge Orie asked you a few minutes -- the photographs that
6 you looked at to determine where to go, to go and look for the scene, and
7 you said those photographs were taken by other people. They were in the
8 case file. They are in the case file. That's the photograph I'm asking
9 for, not the photograph you took.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe I have it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you bring it then? Do you have it here or
12 would you have it in your hotel room?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe they are in my bag here,
14 although I don't know what technical possibility we have to get them.
15 Perhaps during the break?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps if would you bring them during the
17 break, then we could put them on the ELMO so that we could see the
18 photographs on the basis of which you found what you thought to be the
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. I have ... I have it
21 in electronic form, in electronic form, if it can be used.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If you have it in electronic form on your computer,
23 perhaps with the assistance of someone of the Registry, it could be put
24 on a -- it could be put on a -- perhaps a USB stick and that you
25 determine which one then to be copied on it, so you'll be in charge.
1 Perhaps an empty USB stick. It will then be put on that USB stick, and
2 then perhaps we are able to look at it, if you give the format of -- is
3 it -- I don't know whether it's PDF or PJG or whatever it is, but if you
4 would kindly provide that to someone from the Registry, who could assist
6 Is that okay as far as you're concerned?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hope I can. I suppose I have it.
8 I apologise in advance if I will be willing to locate it [as
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I take it that so that no one has to touch
11 your computer, that you know how to copy a file from perhaps your hard
12 disk to the USB stick, if that is provided to you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Apologies. My computer is my hotel
14 room. Perhaps there is a computer here that I can use? I left my
15 computer in the hotel room.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If you say "I have it electronically," on what do
17 you have it? Do you have a USB stick, or do you have ...
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On a disk. External disk.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So perhaps -- but let's see whether ITSS could
20 assist, that they provide you temporarily with a laptop computer and that
21 you copy the photographs from your external disk onto a USB stick, so as
22 not to give access to the whole of the information on your disk, but just
23 that you copy whatever photograph you used - not taken by yourself - you
24 used to identify the location of this incident, which you then either
25 found or perhaps missed.
1 Is that okay with you?
2 I hope the instructions are clear enough.
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see whether it can be done in the next break,
6 and if not, you will be assisted over the weekend to perform the same.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think it would be a good moment to take a break.
9 Ms. Edgerton, I'm available for ITSS to tell exactly what kind of
10 instructions I gave, what the Chamber sought to be achieved. If it is
11 possible to do it in half an hour, fine; if not, then we'll take further
12 time over the weekend.
13 Witness, your co-operation is highly appreciated. We don't know
14 how quickly we can do it.
15 Mr. Usher, would you escort the witness out of the courtroom.
16 We'd like to see you back in half an hour.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes to
20 --- Recess taken at 1.12 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Some matters were announced as to be raised at this
24 Mr. Tieger.
25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to alert the Court,
1 I have one and Mr. McCloskey will raise the other matter.
2 My matter concerns the request by the Trial Chamber on Tuesday
3 about whether the Prosecution wished to address remarks by Mr. Lukic
4 about MFI P7527, which was an Official Note by an AID official based on
5 information provided by Dusan Bilcar about the death of his wife Ratka.
6 And the Trial Chamber gave us until today to do so.
7 As it turns out, Your Honours, a review of the background to the
8 tendering of this document is quite illuminating. The document was
9 tendered on September 1st, and at that time Mr. Lukic objected that the
10 Official Note had not been signed by Mr. Bilcar. That's at transcript
11 38580 through -81. Somehow suggesting that there is something suspect
12 when an Official Note is signed by the official who prepared the note,
13 rather than the source of the information.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you just for a second. I think it was
15 38580 through -81 --
16 MR. TIEGER: Correct. If I misstated, I apologise.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Otherwise you would have talked about for more than
18 70 pages. Please proceed.
19 MR. TIEGER: Thank you. Because at that time there was a
20 question about whether the attachments to the Official Note were
21 available for review, the Trial Chamber decided to defer admission until
22 it heard further from the Prosecution about those documents. And in the
23 same court session, the Prosecution advised that the two attachments, an
24 excerpt from the death registry and a death certificate, were now
25 uploaded. And that's found at 38598. The Trial Chamber then stated it
1 would MFI the documents pending translation of the annexes; that's 38599.
2 And at that point, the Trial Chamber asked Mr. Lukic whether in light of
3 the nature of the annexes and their relationship to the Official Note he
4 still maintained the objection. He advised that he did so, explained his
5 position again, and the Trial Chamber noted in response that these points
6 "didn't deprive it," meaning the Official Note, "from its probative
7 value." But also noted that it understood that the objection stood and
8 it would therefore decide on admissibility formally when the translations
9 arrived. That's 38600 to -01.
10 Two days later, on the 3rd of September, Ms. Stewart advised the
11 Trial Chamber and the parties by e-mail that the full translation for the
12 entirety of the document, including the annexes, had been received and
13 those were now uploaded in e-court under doc ID 0105-8653-1-ET.
14 As far as we're aware, nothing further happened until this past
15 Tuesday when Mr. Lukic decided to expand his objections without either
16 notice to us or presumably notice to the Trial Chamber and then objected
17 that there was no number or protocol. It was not clear to him to whom
18 the report was addressed, the Official Note was addressed, and that the
19 interview was not attached.
20 Now, apart from what I would consider the procedural irregularity
21 of unexpectedly reopening the argument on the issue, the objections are
22 also substantively groundless. As mentioned, it borders on the
23 frivolous, I would suggest, to state or suggest that the note should have
24 been signed by the person providing the information rather than the
25 official who wrote the note. And that point is perhaps best exemplified
1 by the fact that this very day we received a notice of documents that
2 Mr. Lukic intends to seek to tender which included an Official Note
3 signed by the official and not the witness. That's 65 ter 09985.
4 Further, with respect to the arguments more recently advanced by
5 Mr. Lukic regarding no number or indication of intended recipient,
6 et cetera, evidence in this case, that's P4889, page 8, and other
7 documents that the parties are both aware of, and that would be, for
8 example, 65 ter 32988, make clear that the format of P7527 was the
9 customary format; that is, no case number or protocol number, no
10 particular person to whom it was to be sent, and it was signed by the
11 official rather than the informational source.
12 Further, the Defence itself has tendered analogous or similar
13 documents; that is, Official Notes which were not signed by either the
14 person who -- by the person who provided the information but instead by
15 the official who prepared the Official Note, that do not bear a number or
16 a protocol, and that have no indication of a specific intended recipient.
17 And those, for example, would be D00824 and D00825. The Defence should
18 therefore be well aware of the fact that this is scarcely an anomaly and,
19 in any event, does not deprive the document of probative value to bar
21 So as the Trial Chamber itself noted in early September, the
22 Defence arguments do not deprive the document of probative value and it
23 should be admitted.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm a bit hesitant because you reopened
25 the debate where I think the issue which was left was whether the
1 translations were now complete, et cetera --
2 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I think in the first place, we objected
3 that it's not known who composed this Official Note. And there is no
4 signature, it cannot tell us who did it. So we objected that we do not
5 know who composed.
6 The example my learned friend gave as to D00825 has the name on
7 the bottom and it's possible to locate source. So we still cannot see
8 who composed. Not only there is no number, maybe there are similar
9 documents, but we do not know who composed this document.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say --
11 MR. LUKIC: And it's our original objection, actually.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- that the name of the person who signed it is
13 not --
14 MR. LUKIC: There are two signatures but there is no name --
15 there is -- we cannot find any name.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Clear. Anything else?
17 MR. LUKIC: That's it, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's it. Then the Chamber will decide on whether
19 or not to admit.
20 Mr. McCloskey, I hope you will as short as Mr. Tieger was.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Hopefully shorter.
22 But this -- I'll take us back to 16 September where I reminded
23 all of us that we had received no real information regarding your request
24 back at the end of 2014 for an audio recording of a NIOD investigation of
25 a witness. At the -- you had recently given us six weeks to try to work
1 with the Dutch government to clear this up and I -- unfortunately,
2 despite several contacts via e-mail and -- I finally was able to speak to
3 the person by phone from the prosecutor's office. We have no significant
4 information and no real movement on this, on what is very simple request.
5 So I would propose that we file a request to the Court for a
6 court order and -- where we can lay out these details for you, and I see
7 no other way to do it. We tried to do it through the official Request
8 for Assistance with the Dutch government. I tried to speak to the
9 prosecutor. Finally was able to reach the lawyer that is representing
10 the prosecutor's office. Apparently there's just some kind of hang-up
11 and they don't -- they're having trouble even responding to us.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think the usual way is then to seek the assistance
13 of the Chamber in order to compel the relevant government or relevant
14 person through the government or institution through the government to
15 fulfil their obligations under Rule 29 of the Statute.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Precisely. And we should be able to get you
17 something by the end of next week, if not sooner.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll look at it. Defence will have an
19 opportunity to respond to it and then we'll decide on it.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: I discussed very briefly with Mr. Lukic and of
21 course they haven't been really -- not so involved. It is not really an
22 issue, they have no dog in that fight. But we'll get you something next
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the way we address states if these kind
25 of things happen.
1 If that's it, I do understand that the witness has been able to
2 copy the photographs on which he relied when trying to find the location,
3 that they're now in the Registry's hands.
4 And, Madam Registrar, could you tell us how many photographs we
5 have there?
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: There are three.
8 I suggest -- Ms. Edgerton, I would leave it in your hands that
9 the three photographs are shown to the witness so that he can confirm
10 whether or not these were the photographs on which he -- on which
11 he oriented himself when trying to find the location.
12 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if I could be excused, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are, Mr. McCloskey.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
17 Witness, we have received three photographs. They're in the
18 hands of the Registry at this moment. Thank you very much for providing
20 Ms. Edgerton, I take it that you want to show all three to the
22 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the first one. And now how to
24 identify them, perhaps you describe them because they've not been --
25 they're not yet part of the system. Could we have a look at number 1
1 which then will be described by whatever can be seen on it.
2 MS. EDGERTON: I think I can make this really quite easy in terms
3 of description, Your Honours. That's an image from the report --
4 JUDGE ORIE: But is this -- yes.
5 MS. EDGERTON: That's the top photograph that we find at image 86
6 on page 125 in English in the section of the report related to F-5.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So it would have been easier if the witness would
8 have told us that that was one of the pictures.
9 Could we look at -- what we looked at is the top image of what is
10 found in the report as image 86 with a circled -- circle marking on it.
11 Next one, please. Next one is the bottom one of image 86.
12 Third one, please -- with a marking on it, but that's visible in
13 86 as well.
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: This seems to be the same one as we've seen before
16 but ...
17 Yes, the third one is a photograph, we see, with a house where
18 further construction work seems to have been done in red bricks. Certain
19 portions are crossed out by black markings. In front of the house, there
20 is a car which seems to be a kind of -- how do you call that? - a
21 caravan, a van. A station wagon, yes, station wagon of -- and the --
22 there's another car. But I do understand that this picture is in
23 evidence as P1919.
24 MS. EDGERTON: That's correct.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So, as a matter of fact, there's nothing new at this
1 moment. Or do we have another one? We have another one.
2 This seems to be the same as we saw before.
3 Are these all the pictures you provided, Witness?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had three photographs under three
5 different numbers. I don't know. This is 86. And I think we saw the
6 last one was 85. Perhaps they're the same but ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look in your report. What we saw first
8 were the two marked photographs, both appearing as image 86 in the
9 report. Then --
10 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- we had P1919.
12 MS. EDGERTON: The one that's just left the screen, if we could
13 go back one, is also an exhibit in this case. And if we could just see
14 the ERN, I can put on the record that this final photograph, 02124051, is
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then I thought there were the same but
17 apparently they're not the same. Otherwise, they would not be in the
18 system under two different numbers, P1919 and P1924. So there's no need
19 to have it further -- and these were the photographs on which you found
20 the location?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And these are the photographs you have received
23 from the Defence in the case file; right?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right. Right.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you don't know who took the photographs and
1 when they were taken?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know who took them. The
3 markings, I believe, were made by Ramiza Kundo, the lines.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you don't know the time, the day when they
5 were taken; correct?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: When you spotted the location, when you identified
9 it, did you -- had you seen already the Barry Hogan video with
10 Ramiza Kundo?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I had not.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Once you had seen that, have you then verified
13 whether you had spotted the right location?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And it was the same?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same, definitely.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, we see in your still of this video,
18 we see an electricity -- well, not just a mast where -- a whole structure
19 at the right-hand side, that is also found at the location you inspected?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll further look at it.
22 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
23 MS. EDGERTON: Can we go back, please, for a second to P7592 now.
24 Q. So the effect of plotting the incident location 130 metres down
25 the road from where the witness in the video we saw yesterday said that
1 it actually happened gives a potential wider field of fire that you could
2 argue includes Bosnian-held territory, doesn't it? That's the effect of
3 this 130-metre shift.
4 A. That is partially true. It is true that the area is wider from
5 here, but if we look from the top to the bottom of the building, it is
6 the same direction moving through the middle of the street. I still
7 claim that from this place and in relation to the photograph we saw just
8 now and given the disposition of the buildings, I think even more so that
9 that is the location. However, it does not affect my conclusion because
10 the line follows the middle of the road and goes in front of the house.
11 Now whether the area is wider or narrower, in my view, is
12 irrelevant because the source of fire could have been in either of the
14 Let me say again, as can be seen on the photograph, it is a very
15 steep terrain. These houses below are in direct line of fire of a bullet
16 from that location, so since it is a steep area, they do not provide
17 shelter, as can be seen on the footage and in the photograph with the
18 open view of the field.
19 Q. Well, now we're going long past the question that I actually
20 asked. But with your answer, I want to continue about the narrow natural
21 tunnel we've been talking.
22 Now you agreed you could see that tunnel in the video that we
23 watched yesterday and, frankly, you can also see the tunnel in your image
24 85 of your report, the still of the video. So that tunnel --
25 MS. EDGERTON: Actually, let's go to 65 ter number 33332, page 1.
1 Q. That tunnel leaves a narrow field of fire, doesn't it? It leaves
2 a very narrow field of fire that you agreed from the location the victim
3 was at was visible to Serb-held territory; right?
4 Can you answer my question?
5 A. That is correct. It is a narrow area. Actually, I don't know
6 how to define it. What do you include under the term "narrow field"? It
7 is narrow at the top of the street but at the bottom is relatively wide,
8 as can be seen here.
9 MS. EDGERTON: Could you please take this image and turn it
10 sideways so that it is displayed in portrait.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Quarter turn to the right, clockwise.
12 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: There we are.
14 MS. EDGERTON:
15 Q. So what we did in this 65 ter number is we've got your -- we've
16 got Mr. Van der Weijden's measured image of the narrow field of fire and
17 that's, as you can see, from P1130, page 30; and on top, we've got your
18 image 88 again of the potential field of fire from your plotted point
19 130 metres down the road from where Mrs. Kundo in the video said she was
21 Now, we transposed Mr. Van der Weijden's assessed field of fire
22 which takes into account, as he says in his report, the actual physical
23 characteristics of the incident location over yours.
24 MS. EDGERTON: If we could go to the next page, please.
25 Q. And we see it displayed in the top image of page 2 of
1 65 ter number 33332 in green.
2 So, Mr. Poparic, your markings of the field of fire which you
3 argue takes into account -- or exposes the victim to fire from
4 Bosnian-held territory actually ignores the visual evidence of that
5 narrow tunnel up the road and the actual field of fire shows almost no
6 line of sight from Bosnian-held territory at all. We see it clearly
7 here, don't we?
8 A. I can see that and it is incorrect. As I said, I --
9 Q. No -- Mr. Poparic --
10 A. -- drew the line close to the building but --
11 Q. I just asked you -- I just asked if you could -- if you could see
12 the difference here and you've answered the question.
13 Now, I showed this image, this identical image to you in the
14 Karadzic case and in that case you agreed, at transcript pages 39234,
15 line 24 to 39235, line 2, you agreed that the area you marked is perhaps
16 wider than the one marked by Van der Weijden. Do you remember that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, you admitted in the Karadzic case there was some deviation
19 with Van der Weijden, and that's at 39235, lines 3 and 4, and this is
20 all, by the way, at 65 ter number 39270 [sic], pages 72 and 73. You
21 admitted some deviation --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: When you read numbers, you should slow down.
23 MS. EDGERTON: 65 -- pardon me. 65 ter number 32790, pages 72
24 and 73.
25 Q. So you saw --
1 MS. EDGERTON: I'm sorry, could we just have one image on the
2 screen, please.
3 Q. You saw this in the Karadzic case. You admitted there was some
4 deviation, but what you did in your report for this case is, admitting
5 the deviation, you still haven't corrected it. You filed exactly the
6 same images; right?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And --
9 A. I can explain.
10 Q. And those -- your image crosses over geographical boundaries and
11 doubles up the field of fire that actually exists from the point the
12 victim says she was shot at; right?
13 A. May I explain? I stand by what I said in the Karadzic case. I
14 allow for the possibility that the boundaries may be wider, whoever set
15 them. I guess it was Mr. Van der Weijden. That is irrelevant. What is
16 relevant whether there was space in either of the controlled territories
17 from which the location would visible. The median purple line follows
18 the middle of the street, no matter whether it is moved up or down in
19 relation to the point you marked. That is the middle of the street. Now
20 whether it is on the left or right, in my view, is not important. I did
21 not change that. As I said in the Karadzic case, that is my view.
22 However, there is an area in both VRS-controlled area and in
23 ABiH-controlled area. That is correct. I stand by that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following. Do you -- are you
25 telling us that from the yellow-dot position, as you thought was the
1 correct one, that obstructions by buildings, by the terrain, et cetera,
2 are exactly the same as the obstructions you would find at the spot where
3 Ramiza Kundo said she was hit?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I explained a moment ago, but you
5 did not understand obviously.
6 The terrain is such that the buildings in front, as we can see in
7 the corner, do not present an obstacle in relation to the place where
8 Ms. Kundo was.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Have you measured that?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw it. I didn't have to measure
11 it. I could see it. It's visible.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then if you look at your own image 85, you see that?
13 That's a still from the video.
14 MS. EDGERTON: It's on page 123 in English, if you want to
15 display it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 123 in English.
17 Now, is the slope there so steep that the terrain would be no
18 obstacle whatsoever irrespective of whether you follow the road, or left
19 of the road, or right of the road, it would make no difference
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, I'm not asserting that.
22 I said that in the context of the sketch. To the right, behind
23 Mr. Hogan, where we can see these containers ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Where the containers are, there's a
1 slope, a pile of earth, which obstructs the area from view. On the
2 left-hand side, there is this plateau --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Does that give an obstruction?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It does.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Stop. Is there a similar obstruction from
6 the location you identified?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I took that into account.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I -- I asked you whether there's a similar
9 obstruction there. Because you -- from that point, you gave a very wide
10 angle from which there was a line of vision, which suggests that there
11 was no obstruction, no obstruction of sight.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would not agree. If we look at
13 the sketch, it all ends in a very sharp angle of a triangle which enters
14 the street and perhaps goes over the fence because it's very low. So
15 depending on the distance, one could potentially see over it.
16 Ms. Edgerton objected to the width of the area. I told you I did
17 not determine the width precisely. If it was needed, I would have
18 engaged land surveyors or someone of that sort to measure it. What was
19 important for me was to see whether it was visible from either of the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, therefore, the width is very important,
22 the width of the area where there is a line of sight. Because I didn't
23 find any photographs from your point looking downwards, whether there's
24 any obstruction, yes or no. We see in this still from the video that
25 both to the left of the street and right of the street, looking from
1 where these persons are standing, that there are obstructions,
2 considerable obstructions of sight.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. On the left- and right-hand
4 side. But on the diagram, on the sketch, if I may --
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. What I'd like to know is whether from your
6 location, whether we find similar obstructions and whether you have taken
7 pictures of that.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. What do you mean when
9 you say my location? Down below in the field?
10 JUDGE ORIE: 130 metres away.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not the location I had in
12 mind, the one that is depicted. It's a technical error. I analysed this
13 particular case. I did not even consider --
14 JUDGE ORIE: You drew the lines and the angle with unobstructed
15 view from there, isn't it?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I assert that from this
17 location there are areas on both sides from which it is visible. They
18 may not be too big, but they are there. That is what I wanted to say.
19 As for the width of each area, I didn't determine that. One may
20 be critical about how wide it is, and I did not precisely determine that
21 because I thought it irrelevant. Why would I be doing that?
22 Mr. Van der Weijden also approximated. He did invest a bit more
23 effort trying to sort out angles but it's also just an estimate.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Would you --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Basically --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Would you agree that what you observed and the
2 sketch you have drawn from a wrong position gives us not a good idea of
3 what the line of sights because it is assessed - not even measured - from
4 a wrong location?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't agree --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Fine --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that it was mistakenly taken. I
8 depicted that location and the same direction. It is the very same
9 direction. The only thing that can be open for discussion is the width.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the width leads to whether it is area
11 under control of the BiH or the VRS. Do you agree with that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, fine. Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please -- I'm looking at the clock. We
16 should have stopped already.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Could I just have this document 65 ter 33332 as a
18 Prosecution exhibit, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No objections. Madam Registrar, the number
20 would be?
21 THE REGISTRAR: P7593, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And that is both -- oh, no. It's one -- yes.
23 That's how many pages? Two pages --
24 MS. EDGERTON: Two pages, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: One separate and then the overlay on the second one.
1 Yes. Admitted into evidence.
2 Witness, we'll take a break and we will resume -- since we're not
3 sitting on Fridays, we'll resume on Monday, the 2nd of November, 2015, at
4 9.30 in the morning, and we'd like to see you back then. And I instruct
5 you, as I did before, that you should not communicate with whomever about
6 your testimony in whatever way, and we'd like to see you back. You may
7 follow the usher.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Upon adjourning, I add for the parties that it will
11 be in this same courtroom, I, on the 2nd of November.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.24 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Monday, the 2nd day of
14 November, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.